DOA: NVIDIA GTX 1650 Review, Benchmarks, & Overclocking vs. RX 570 | GamersNexus
We’re working with the GTX 1650 SC Ultra Gaming, a 4GB GDDR5 solution that costs $170, about $20 over the price floor for the lowest-end cards, and includes a 6-pin connector for more clock-boosting and overclocking headroom. The EVGA GTX 1650 SC Ultra runs a 90W board power stock, whereas the reference design is suited for 75W. The GTX 1650 SC Ultra uses a dual-fan cooler design that we’ll discuss more in our tear-down video and in the thermals section of this video. This model also includes a metal backplate, one of the primary marketing features of the two-slot, two-fan design.
The card runs 896 CUDA cores, or 7 streaming multiprocessors at 128 CUDA cores per SM, which leaves us wondering when the 1650 Ti will release as this is not a fully populated GPU die. EVGA’s boost clock on this card is 1860MHz with memory at 8Gbps stock on the 128-bit bus, enabling operation at 128GB/s.
Let’s get into benchmarking. We’ll have 1080p and 1440p tests primarily, with overclocking, power, thermals, and frametime charts thrown in – and we managed to get all of this done in the last few hours. Note that we’re still testing with higher settings. You could always lower settings to improve absolute framerate, but relative framerate scaling will remain roughly the same.
GPU Test Bench (Sponsored by Corsair)
|
Component
|
Courtesy of
|
|
|
CPU
|
Intel i7-8086K 5.0GHz
|
GamersNexus
|
|
GPU
|
This is what we’re testing!
|
Often the company that makes the card, but sometimes us (see article)
|
|
Motherboard
|
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero
|
ASUS
|
|
RAM
|
Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3200MHz
|
Corsair
|
|
PSU
|
Corsair AX1600i
|
Corsair
|
|
Cooler
|
NZXT Kraken X62
|
NZXT
|
|
SSD
|
Plextor 256-M7VC
|
GamersNexus
|
F1 2018
F1 2018 and the EGO engine are next.
At 1080p, the GTX 1650 SC Ultra runs at 61FPS AVG, with room to improve if settings were reduced toward High or Medium. The RX 570, for competitive reference, runs at 66FPS AVG. This is a lead of about 9%. The GTX 1060 6GB still holds a strong lead over both, running at 75FPS AVG, demonstrating that the 1650 isn’t the successor to the 1060, but rather the 1660 non-Ti was. An overclock gets us to 66FPS AVG, which ties the RX 570 stock card. Not a great place to be.
At 1440p, the 1650 runs at 46FPS AVG with ultra-high settings, which really isn’t all that bad when considering where we came from a few years ago. A settings reduction would even allow an average of 60FPS, if so desired. Unfortunately for the 1650, the RX 570 still performs better here – not just in average framerate, but also measurably and perceptibly in frametime performance. This is something we’ve demonstrated relating to F1 2018 in the past, too. Overclocking pushes to 50FPS AVG.
Apex Legends
Apex Legends is up next.
This is a modern DirectX 11 game that we set to all “High” settings, then use a highly controlled multiplayer test course. We test away from other players, but in the actual game. Our previous content discovered that this was highly representative of real gameplay and is the most accurate way to benchmark.
At 1080p and with all High settings, the GTX 1650 SC Ultra places at 64FPS AVG, with lows reasonably well-timed at 49 and 41FPS 1% and 0.1% lows. The the RX 570 isn’t as advantaged here as it was in Sniper, as the workload has moved back to DirectX 11 and drops asynchronous command support. The 570’s 70FPS AVG allows it a lead of 9% over the stock 1650 SC Ultra. Overclocking the 1650 got it close to the stock RX 570, but the card still fell short with a 69FPS AVG, or an improvement of about 7% over baseline. The GTX 1060 6GB card hasn’t been retested since our initial round, but was at 72FPS AVG at the time of last test. It may be a few percentage points faster now, but the results overall haven’t changed much for other retested cards.
Moving on to frametimes, again being mindful that lower is better, but more consistent is better than lower, we see that the Gigabyte RX 570 4GB card managed performance in the range of roughly 11ms to 25ms, with the average falling closer to 15-16ms. Although the data is more sporadic than Sniper’s smooth frametime plot, there still aren’t any extreme swings in frame-to-frame interval. This is important.
Finally, we’ll plot the GTX 1050 Ti just to get it on the chart, although it’d need a serious settings reduction to really play fluidly in this game. The 1050 Ti doesn’t have extreme excursions from the mean, either, but is certainly slower on average.
Sniper Elite 4
Sniper Elite 4 will start us off. This game uses the Asura engine and is one of the best-built DirectX 12 titles out. We use Dx12, Asynchronous Compute, High settings, and test primarily at 1080p for this class of video card; that said, we also have some 4K tests strictly for synthetic comparison to a wider range of products.
For now, let’s start with the more realistic 1080p setting.
At 1080p, the GTX 1650 SC Ultra runs Sniper at 71FPS AVG, with lows at 61FPS and 53FPS 0.1%. This particular game is compute-intensive, and so AMD’s RX 570 leverages architectural advantages to lead the 1650 by about 36%, with a 97FPS AVG. The GTX 1060 6GB Gaming X leads both the RX 570 and the GTX 1650, although the latter is led more significantly, with its 104FPS AVG. Overclocking the GTX 1650 to about 2085MHz gets it to 77FPS AVG, an improvement over baseline of 8%. Improvement in the 1650 over the 1050 Ti is meaningful, posting 24% uplift, but it doesn’t compete well with the RX 570 in this title.
Here’s a frametime plot for Sniper 4. Remember that frametimes are the base metric for framerate, and are important as they don’t average-out potential issues that AVG FPS and even 1% lows can obscure. The RX 570 4GB card runs exceptionally well here, with an average frametime of about 10ms frame-to-frame. This line is nearly perfectly flat, which is what we want to see.
The flatter the line, the less the variance. For reference, 16.667ms is 60FPS. We have observed that excursions beyond 8-12ms frame-to-frame will cause users to notice stutter. As for the new GTX 1650, the line is relatively smooth, it’s just slower than the RX 570.
Finally, the GTX 1050 Ti 4GB card ends up at around 15-22ms on average, with more sporadic frametime consistency along its line. It’s not bad, but this card has clearly never been particularly high-end.
4K is obviously not a real-world scenario for these cards, but we’re going to briefly look at a 4K Sniper chart for purposes of synthetic comparison and seeing the card hierarchy. The RX 570 again leads, this time by 41% over the GTX 1650 SC Ultra. Overclocking the SC Ultra marginally helps, but not enough to change the stack. The 1650 and 570 are both still led by the GTX 1060 6GB.
Far Cry 5
Far Cry 5 at 1080p has the GTX 1650 SC Ultra at 56FPS AVG, which is again behind the RX 570’s 62FPS AVG. The 570 maintains a steady lead of 10.
5% while managing to be cheaper. The GTX 1060, for what it’s worth, still leads, but we’re only pointing it out because some rumors had suggested the 1650 might surpass the 1060, and that’s clearly wrong. Overclocking puts the 1650 to 61FPS AVG, an improvement of about 8%.
1440p doesn’t change the story much: The RX 570 again leads the GTX 1650. Neither card is particularly meant to play this game at 1440p, so we’ll move on quickly to the next chart.
GTA V
GTA V has typically posted much better performance on NVIDIA than AMD when compared relatively to other games, and that remains true here. At 1080p, the GTX 1650 SC Ultra ties the RX 570 for the first time all review. The two results are roughly within margin of error of one another for averages, although we’d like to see better lows than the 1650 posted. The GTX 1060 still leads both handily, with an 83FPS AVG – it’s not even close to what some of the rumors projected, with the 1060 6GB still holding a lead of 31% over the 1650.
Overclocking allows an improvement to 68FPS AVG, which is enough to tie the stock 780 Ti reference model, although obviously the overclocked 780 Ti holds a significant lead. The RX 570, for what it’s worth, could also be overclocked here, but we’re arguing over single-digit movements at this point. The two cards are effectively the same in AVG FPS for GTA V.
At 1440p, the GTX 1650 SC Ultra continues its tie with the RX 570, with an overclock stretching up toward 46FPS AVG, nearing the RX 580 Gaming X stock card. That’s not bad, but GTA V has been the only instance of this thus far. An overclocked 570 would encroach similarly on the 580, as we demonstrated years ago with the RX 400 and 500 launches.
SOTTR
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is another modern, DirectX 12 title. For this one, the GTX 1650 SC Ultra operates an average of about 50FPS, predictably allowing it to lead the 960 and 1050 Ti, but also allowing the RX 570 a lead of about 9.3%. Please note again that dropping settings further would obviously allow relative playability in Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
The 50FPS AVG is fine for comparative purposes with our higher settings, but if you wanted to play the game with a higher FPS, it could be done at the drop of quality to about medium. Overclocking gets us to 52FPS AVG, although instability in the OC has dropped our low-end performance for frametime consistency. This could be improved with more time – for example, if NVIDIA released drivers to press ahead of launch.
At 1440p, the 1650’s 33FPS AVG doesn’t inspire much confidence with these settings. The game would need a serious settings reduction to bring this closer to fluidity. Strictly for comparative purposes, though, we learn that the RX 570 holds a lead once again, this time at 38FPS AVG, a lead of about 15%.
OC Stepping
EVGA GTX 1650 SC Ultra Overclock Stepping | TimeSpy Stress Test | GamersNexus. net |
||||||||||
| Peak Frequency | AVG Frequency | Core Offset | Core Voltage | Memory Frequency | Memory Offset | Power | Watts | Fan Speed | Active Temp | Pass/Fail |
| 1980 | 1965 | 2000.5 | 100% | 72 | 1600 | 50 | P | |||
| 1980 | 1950 | 1.031 | 2000.5 | 100% | 72 | 1700 | 55 | P | ||
| 1980 | 1935 | 2000.5 | 100% | 72 | 1800 | 58 | P | |||
| 2025 | 2025 | 100 | 1.03 | 2000.5 | 80 | 3000 | 57 | P | ||
| 2055 | 2055 | 125 | 1.03 | 2000.5 | 106% | 80 | 3000 | 55 | P | |
| 2085 | 2085 | 150 | 2000.5 | 106% | 80 | 3000 | 56 | P | ||
| 2100 | 2100 | 175 | 1.03 | 2000.5 | 80 | 3000 | 56 | P | ||
| 200 | 1.03 | 2000.5 | 106% | 80 | 3000 | 56 | F | |||
| Application Crash | ||||||||||
| 2115 | 2085 | 160 | 2200.5 | 400 | 106% | 85 | 3000 | 55 | P | |
This table shows our overclock stepping, providing a look at the very quick process we followed to get to our overclock. We were able to sort of hold 2100MHz, but it wasn’t stable in all games tested, and so we had to pull back to 2085MHz for the final average frequency. Peaks depend on thermals, as always, and this is illustrated immediately in the top 3 rows of our table. We changed nothing between those 3 rows and just let the temperature slowly rise, eventually dropping us from 1980MHz to about 1935MHz once nearing 60 degrees Celsius. After this, we started actually overclocking the card, settling for just a 160MHz offset and 400MHz for the memory offset. We sort of had 175MHz offset stable, but 0.1% lows were dropping too hard, and so we reverted to 160MHz core offset.
Power Consumption
Conclusion
The GTX 1650 has basically one use case when compared to its on-market competition: Small, low-power video outs that can still handle some kind of minimal GPU workload. If you don’t care about the difference in power consumption – and at this price point, not many do – and you also don’t care about needing a power cable, then the RX 570 is a much better purchase for the gaming audience. Most of the ones we saw on launch day were around $130, versus an initial 2017 price of ~$180-$220, and that $130-$150 pricing is just objectively better than the GTX 1650 options on market. Further driving the knife into the heart of the 1650, the RX 570 is a card from 2016, but disguised: In 2016, AMD launched its RX 470 video card, which the RX 570 usurped in 2017. They’re identical, aside from a higher stock clock on the RX 570. We didn’t even overclock the 570 in this review, mostly for time reasons, and it still remains in better positioning than the GTX 1650’s overclocks. The GTX 1650 is simply not competitive in its price class. It is handily beaten by a 2-year-old card that’s built atop a 3-year-old GPU, dishing NVIDIA the same embarrassment we dished to AMD for competing with the 1080 Ti two years too late.
EVGA’s GTX 1650 SC Ultra performed reasonably well as an overclocker, hitting 2085-2115MHz (depending on thermals, averaging 2085) when pushed, but still couldn’t match the RX 570. On average, the RX 570 is 7-10% ahead of the GTX 1650, with the GTX 1650 tying in GTA V.
We’ll follow-up more with this card in the coming days, primarily on the YT channel, but it’s looking like a pass from us for now. There are some places it’d make sense, like a 75W setup where no power cables are permissible (maybe replacing an old OEM PC GPU?), but that’s about it.
Editorial, Testing: Steve Burke
Video: Andrew Coleman
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 570: compare as placas de vídeo de entrada | Placas
Publicidade
Nova GTX 1650 mira a RX 570, mas especificações, preço e benchmarks dão vantagem à placa da AMD
Por Filipe Garrett, para o TechTudo
A GeForce GTX 1650 é a nova placa de vídeo de entrada da Nvidia. O modelo pode ser uma boa opção para usuários gamer que não querem gastar muito. Desenvolvido em torno da nova arquitetura Turing, o componente já está disponível para comprar no Brasil e encontra um mercado com diversas opções a preços mais baixos, como a Radeon RX 570.
LEIA: Placa de vídeo poderosa é ‘perfeita’ para jogos; veja as diferenças e preço no Brasil
O modelo da AMD tem o mesmo perfil, com bom custo-benefício. A placa, inclusive, apresenta resultados superiores aos da rival em benchmarks de sites especializados, o que pode ser uma vantagem na hora de comprar sua nova GPU. Confira a seguir mais detalhes a respeito das especificações e compare as diferentes soluções gráficas.
Quer comprar celular, TV e outros produtos com desconto? Conheça o Compare TechTudo
Nova GTX 1650 atinge velocidades altas, mas tem poucos núcleos — Foto: Divulgação/Gigabyte
Especificações
A GTX 1650 é uma placa com 896 núcleos de processamento CUDA, e traz processador que roda a velocidades de 1. 485 MHz a 1.665 MHz. Do outro lado, a RX 570 soma 2.048 processadores stream agregados em 32 unidades computacionais, rodando a velocidades de 1.168 MHz a 1.244 MHz.
Os números acima indicam que a placa da Nvidia atinge velocidades maiores, mas tem menos núcleos de processamento. Embora os núcleos CUDA e processadores stream não sejam a mesma coisa – e, portanto, não possam ser tratados em igualdade –, a diferença é grande em favor da Radeon. Sendo assim, isso explica algumas vantagens de desempenho que a placa tem garantido diante da rival.
Na memória RAM, a RX 570 tem opções de 4 GB ou 8 GB de memória GDDR5, dobro da quantidade encontrada na placa da Nvidia. Nas demais especificações de memória, há ainda mais vantagem para a AMD: a RX 570 oferece banda de 256 na conexão entre GPU e RAM, dobro da interface de 128 que conecta os dois componentes na GeForce.
Esse aspecto técnico é importante porque determina a velocidade de troca de dados entre GPU e RAM, ponto extremamente sensível para que a placa tenha boa performance. Segundo a AMD, a sua placa troca informações a uma velocidade de 224 GB/s (gigabytes por segundo), valor bem superior aos 128 GB/s do modelo da GTX 1650.
Desempenho
Placa da AMD tem aparecido com desempenho melhor nos comparativos até aqui — Foto: Divulgação/Gigabyte
Mais núcleos e vantagens grandes em especificações de memória são os fatores que explicam o domínio da RX 570 nos primeiros benchmarks. Em geral, os testes têm colocado a placa da AMD com uma vantagem que pode chegar à casa dos 10%, o que é muita coisa em placas de vídeo destinadas a um mesmo público. Os números foram encontrados em comparativos realizados pelo site GamerNexus em diversos jogos recentes, como F1 2018, Apex Legends e Shadow of the Tomb Raider. O portal avaliou as placas tanto em Full HD como em resoluções 1440p.
O TechSpot é outro site que também comparou as duas placas, e encontrou ao menos um resultado inesperado: no recente World War Z, a Radeon foi 38% mais rápida. A margem é tão grande – e o jogo tão recente – que é possível que a Nvidia tire um pouco da diferença com atualizações de drivers. Já no Forza Horizon 4, a placa da Nvidia foi em média 21% inferior, rodando em Full HD.
Testando os mesmos jogos que o GamerNexus – Apex Legends e Shadow of the Tomb Raider – a publicação detectou resultados um pouco mais equilibrados, com a Radeon RX 570 superando a placa da Nvidia em uma pequena margem na faixa dos 5%.
Recursos
Placa da Nvidia tem acesso aos recursos avançados do Geforce Experience — Foto: Divulgação/EVGA
Voltadas para rodar jogos em Full HD e 1440p em títulos menos exigentes, as placas de Nvidia e AMD também rivalizam em recursos. Em ambos os casos, o usuário pode tirar proveito das tecnologias que as duas marcas oferecem em seus drivers e apps de gerenciamento.
Talvez a maior omissão entre as duas seja a ausência de suporte à realidade virtual na GTX 1650. De resto, tecnologias como Nvidia Ansel, G-Sync e FreeSync estão presentes em ambas.
Consumo
RX 570 é mais rápida, mas esquenta muito mais — Foto: Divulgação/XFX
Aqui, a Nvidia se destaca por conta dos 75 Watts dissipados em calor, exigindo fonte de energia de apenas 300 Watts. Além disso, o modelo da linha GeForce pode ser conectado apenas com o suprimento de eletricidade fornecido pelo slot PCle da placa-mãe, dispensando um cabo de oito pinos ligado direto à fonte de energia.
A RX 570, por outro lado, cobra um preço pela performance superior: a placa esquenta muito mais, com TDP determinada na faixa de 150 Watts. Além disso, a placa exige fonte mais robusta, de pelo menos 450 Watts, ligada por um cabo de oito pinos.
Embora o valor de TDP não seja uma tradução exata da quantidade de energia consumida, o valor é um bom indicativo do nível de eficiência do produto: quanto maior a TDP, mais calor a placa produz. Sendo assim, o PC precisa de um sistema de refrigeração de maior qualidade – e que, provavelmente, será mais barulhento.
Com mais tempo de mercado, a RX 570 pode ser encontrada no Brasil a preços que ficam na faixa dos R$ 700 para os modelos mais baratos. A versão Pulse, da Sapphire, que vem com overclock de fábrica e 4 GB de RAM, é encontrada a R$ 750.
Já a GTX 1650 aparece no mercado nacional com preços mais altos, uma vez que ainda é um lançamento recente. A placa da Nvidia pode ser encontrada em versões de marcas como Galax e Gigabyte com preços partindo dos R$ 899.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 vs AMD Radeon RX 570
| Especificações | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 570 |
| Lançamento | Abril de 2019 | Abril de 2018 |
| Preço | a partir de R$ 899 | a partir de R$ 700 |
| Clock | 1. |
1.168 a 1.244 MHz |
| Núcleos | 896 núcleos CUDA | 2.048 processadores stream |
| Memória RAM | 4 GB GDDR5 | 4 ou 8 GB GDDR5 |
| Velocidade de memória | 8 Gb/s | 7 Gb/s |
| Largura de banda | 128 GB/s | 224 GB/s |
| Interface de memória | 128 bits | 256 bits |
| TDP | 75 Watts | 150 Watts |
Via GamerNexus e TechSpot
Mais lidas
Page not found — Technical City
Page not found — Technical City
We did not find such a page on our site: /ru/video/radeon-rx-570-protiv-geforce-gtx-1650%23memory-specs
Popular video card comparisons
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
2060 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3070
GeForce GTX
1060 6GB
vs
Radeon RX
580
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce GTX
1660 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
Popular video cards
GeForce RTX
4090
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
GeForce RTX
3070
Popular 9 processor comparisons0008
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Core i5
12400F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i5
10400F
Core i5
10400F
vs
Core i3
12100F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600G
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i3
12100F
Popular processors
Ryzen 5
5500U
Ryzen 5
5600X
Core i5
12400F
Core i3
1115G4
Core i3
12100F
EPYC
7h22
9MHz
GPU memory frequency
This is an important aspect calculating memory bandwidth
2000MHz
max 16000
Average: 1468 MHz
1750MHz
max 16000
Average: 1468 MHz
FLOPS
The measurement of processing power of a processor is called FLOPS.
2.95TFLOPS
max 1142.32
Average: 53 TFLOPS
4.96TFLOPS
max 1142.32
Average: 53 TFLOPS
RAM
4 GB
max 128
Average: 4.6 GB
8GB
max 128
Average: 4.6 GB
Turbo GPU
If the GPU speed drops below its limit, it can switch to a high clock speed to improve performance.
Show all
1710MHz
max 2903
Average: 1514 MHz
1244MHz
max 2903
Average: 1514 MHz
Texture size
A certain number of textured pixels are displayed on the screen every second.
Show all
95.76 GTexels/s
max 756.8
Average: 145.4 GTexels/s
159.2 GTexels/s
max 756.8
Average: 145.4 GTexels/s
The name of architecture
Turn
Polaris
9000 This is the rate at which the device stores or reads information.
128GB/s
max 2656
Average: 257.8 GB/s
224GB/s
max 2656
Average: 257.8 GB/s
Effective memory speed
The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and information transfer rate of the memory. The performance of the device in applications depends on the clock frequency. The higher it is, the better.
Show all
8002MHz
max 19500
Average: 6984.5 MHz
7000MHz
max 19500
Average: 6984.5 MHz
RAM
4 GB
max 128
Average: 4.6 GB
8GB
max 128
Average: 4.6 GB
GDDR Memory Versions
Latest GDDR memory versions provide high data transfer rates to improve overall performance
Show all
5
Mean: 4.9
5
Mean: 4. 9
Memory bus width
A wide memory bus means that it can transfer more information in one cycle. This property affects the performance of the memory as well as the overall performance of the device’s graphics card.
Show all
128bit
max 8192
Average: 283.9bit
256bit
max 8192
Average: 283.9bit
Heat dissipation (TDP)
Heat dissipation requirement (TDP) is the maximum amount of energy that can be dissipated by the cooling system. The lower the TDP, the less power will be consumed.
Show all
75W
Average value: 160 W
120W
Average value: 160 W
Process
The small size of the semiconductor means it is a new generation chip.
12 nm
Average: 34.7 nm
14 nm
Average: 34.7 nm
Number of transistors
The higher their number, the more processor power it indicates
4700 million
max 80000
Average: 7150 million
5700 million
max 80000
Average: 7150 million
PCIe version
Considerable speed is provided by the expansion card used to connect the computer to peripherals. The updated versions have impressive throughput and provide high performance.
Show all
3
Average: 3
3
Average: 3
Width
191mm
max 421. 7
Average: 192.1mm
246mm
max 421.7
Average: 192.1mm
Height
112mm
max 619
Average: 89.6mm
130mm
max 619
Average: 89.6mm
DirectX
Used in demanding games, providing enhanced graphics
12
max 12.2
Mean: 11.4
12
max 12.2
Mean: 11.4
OpenCL version
Used by some applications to enable GPU power for non-graphical calculations. The newer the version, the more functional it will be
Show all
1.2
max 4.6
Average: 2.2
2.2
max 4.6
Average: 2.2
opengl version
Later versions provide better game graphics
4.5
max 4.6
Average: 4.2
4.5
max 4.6
Average: 4.2
Shader model version
6.5
max 6.6
Average: 5.9
6.4
max 6.6
Average: 5. 9
Vulkan
1.2
1.2
version CUDA
7.5
No data
has an HDMI
HDMI ACTIMI ANSTRUCTION allows you to connect devices with HDMI or mini-HDMI ports. They can transmit video and audio to the display.
Full text
Yes
Yes
HDMI version
The latest version provides a wide signal transmission channel due to the increased number of audio channels, frames per second, etc.
Show all
2
max 2.1
Mean: 1.9
2
max 2.1
Mean: 1.9
DisplayPort
Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort
1
Average: 2. 2
3
Average: 2.2
Number of HDMI sockets
The more there are, the more devices can be connected at the same time (for example, game/TV type consoles)
Show all
2
Average: 1.1
1
Average: 1.1
Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16
PCIe 3.0 x16
HDMI
Yes
Yes
Passmark score
7602
max 29325
Average: 7628.6
1885
max 29325
Average: 7628.6
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU test score
49538
max 1
Average: 80042. 3
max 1
Average: 80042.3
3DMark Fire Strike Score
8619
max 38276
Average: 12463
max 38276
Average: 12463
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics test score
9019
max 49575
Average: 11859.1
max 49575
Average: 11859.1
3DMark 11 Performance GPU score
13372
max 57937
Average: 18799.9
max 57937
Average: 18799.9
3DMark Vantage Performance score
43800
max 97887
Average: 37830. 6
max 97887
Average: 37830.6
3DMark Ice Storm GPU score
365866
max 533357
Average: 372425.7
max 533357
Average: 372425.7
SPECviewperf 12 test score — Solidworks
45
max 202
Average: 62.4
max 202
Average: 62.4
SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 sw-03
44
max 202
Average: 64
max 202
Average: 64
SPECviewperf 12 test evaluation — Siemens NX
7
max 212
Average: 14
max 212
Average: 14
SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 showcase-01
50
max 232
Average: 121. 3
max 232
Average: 121.3
SPECviewperf 12 test score — Medical
22
max 107
Average: 39.6
max 107
Average: 39.6
SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 mediacal-01
21
max 107
Average: 39
max 107
Average: 39
SPECviewperf 12 test score — Maya
88
max 177
Average: 129.8
max 177
Average: 129.8
SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 maya-04
89
max 180
Average: 132. 8
max 180
Average: 132.8
SPECviewperf 12 — Energy score
4
max 25
Average: 9.7
max 25
Average: 9.7
SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 energy-01
5
max 21
Average: 10.7
max 21
Average: 10.7
SPECviewperf 12 — Creo 9 test score0004
thirty
max 153
Average: 49.5
max 153
Average: 49.5
SPECviewperf 12 test score — specvp12 creo-01
34
max 153
Average: 52.